mirror of
https://github.com/bmadcode/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2025-12-29 16:14:59 +00:00
Major Enhancements:
- Installation path is now fully configurable, allowing users to specify custom installation directories during setup
- Default installation location changed to .bmad (hidden directory) for cleaner project root organization
Web Bundle Improvements:
- All web bundles (single agent and team) now include party mode support for multi-agent collaboration!
- Advanced elicitation capabilities integrated into standalone agents
- All bundles enhanced with party mode agent manifests
- Added default-party.csv files to bmm, bmgd, and cis module teams
- The default party file is what will be used with single agent bundles. teams can customize for different party configurations before web bundling through a setting in the team yaml file
- New web bundle outputs for all agents (analyst, architect, dev, pm, sm, tea, tech-writer, ux-designer, game-*, creative-squad)
Phase 4 Workflow Updates (In Progress):
- Initiated shift to separate phase 4 implementation artifacts from documentation
- Phase 4 implementation artifacts (stories, code review, sprint plan, context files) will move to dedicated location outside docs folder
- Installer questions and configuration added for artifact path selection
- Updated workflow.yaml files for code-review, sprint-planning, story-context, epic-tech-context, and retrospective workflows to support this, but still might require some udpates
Additional Changes:
- New agent and action command header models for standardization
- Enhanced web-bundle-activation-steps fragment
- Updated web-bundler.js to support new structure
- VS Code settings updated for new .bmad directory
- Party mode instructions and workflow enhanced for better orchestration
IDE Installer Updates:
- Show version number of installer in cli
- improved Installer UX
- Gemini TOML Improved to have clear loading instructions with @ commands
- All tools agent launcher mds improved to use a central file template critical indication isntead of hardcoding in 2 different locations.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
|
||||
# Implementation Readiness Validation Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
## Document Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Planning Documents
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] PRD exists and is complete (Level 2-4 projects)
|
||||
- [ ] PRD contains measurable success criteria
|
||||
- [ ] PRD defines clear scope boundaries and exclusions
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture document exists (architecture\*.md) (Level 3-4 projects)
|
||||
- [ ] Technical Specification exists with implementation details
|
||||
- [ ] Epic and story breakdown document exists
|
||||
- [ ] All documents are dated and versioned
|
||||
|
||||
### Document Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No placeholder sections remain in any document
|
||||
- [ ] All documents use consistent terminology
|
||||
- [ ] Technical decisions include rationale and trade-offs
|
||||
- [ ] Assumptions and risks are explicitly documented
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies are clearly identified and documented
|
||||
|
||||
## Alignment Verification
|
||||
|
||||
### PRD to Architecture Alignment (Level 3-4)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every functional requirement in PRD has architectural support documented
|
||||
- [ ] All non-functional requirements from PRD are addressed in architecture
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture doesn't introduce features beyond PRD scope
|
||||
- [ ] Performance requirements from PRD match architecture capabilities
|
||||
- [ ] Security requirements from PRD are fully addressed in architecture
|
||||
- [ ] If architecture.md: Implementation patterns are defined for consistency
|
||||
- [ ] If architecture.md: All technology choices have verified versions
|
||||
- [ ] If UX spec exists: Architecture supports UX requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### PRD to Stories Coverage (Level 2-4)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every PRD requirement maps to at least one story
|
||||
- [ ] All user journeys in PRD have complete story coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Story acceptance criteria align with PRD success criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Priority levels in stories match PRD feature priorities
|
||||
- [ ] No stories exist without PRD requirement traceability
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture to Stories Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All architectural components have implementation stories
|
||||
- [ ] Infrastructure setup stories exist for each architectural layer
|
||||
- [ ] Integration points defined in architecture have corresponding stories
|
||||
- [ ] Data migration/setup stories exist if required by architecture
|
||||
- [ ] Security implementation stories cover all architecture security decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Story and Sequencing Quality
|
||||
|
||||
### Story Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All stories have clear acceptance criteria
|
||||
- [ ] Technical tasks are defined within relevant stories
|
||||
- [ ] Stories include error handling and edge cases
|
||||
- [ ] Each story has clear definition of done
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are appropriately sized (no epic-level stories remaining)
|
||||
|
||||
### Sequencing and Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Stories are sequenced in logical implementation order
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies between stories are explicitly documented
|
||||
- [ ] No circular dependencies exist
|
||||
- [ ] Prerequisite technical tasks precede dependent stories
|
||||
- [ ] Foundation/infrastructure stories come before feature stories
|
||||
|
||||
### Greenfield Project Specifics
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Initial project setup and configuration stories exist
|
||||
- [ ] If using architecture.md: First story is starter template initialization command
|
||||
- [ ] Development environment setup is documented
|
||||
- [ ] CI/CD pipeline stories are included early in sequence
|
||||
- [ ] Database/storage initialization stories are properly placed
|
||||
- [ ] Authentication/authorization stories precede protected features
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk and Gap Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Gaps
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No core PRD requirements lack story coverage
|
||||
- [ ] No architectural decisions lack implementation stories
|
||||
- [ ] All integration points have implementation plans
|
||||
- [ ] Error handling strategy is defined and implemented
|
||||
- [ ] Security concerns are all addressed
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Risks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] No conflicting technical approaches between stories
|
||||
- [ ] Technology choices are consistent across all documents
|
||||
- [ ] Performance requirements are achievable with chosen architecture
|
||||
- [ ] Scalability concerns are addressed if applicable
|
||||
- [ ] Third-party dependencies are identified with fallback plans
|
||||
|
||||
## UX and Special Concerns (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
### UX Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] UX requirements are documented in PRD
|
||||
- [ ] UX implementation tasks exist in relevant stories
|
||||
- [ ] Accessibility requirements have story coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Responsive design requirements are addressed
|
||||
- [ ] User flow continuity is maintained across stories
|
||||
|
||||
### Special Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Compliance requirements are fully addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Internationalization needs are covered if required
|
||||
- [ ] Performance benchmarks are defined and measurable
|
||||
- [ ] Monitoring and observability stories exist
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation stories are included where needed
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
### Ready to Proceed Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All critical issues have been resolved
|
||||
- [ ] High priority concerns have mitigation plans
|
||||
- [ ] Story sequencing supports iterative delivery
|
||||
- [ ] Team has necessary skills for implementation
|
||||
- [ ] No blocking dependencies remain unresolved
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Indicators
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Documents demonstrate thorough analysis
|
||||
- [ ] Clear traceability exists across all artifacts
|
||||
- [ ] Consistent level of detail throughout documents
|
||||
- [ ] Risks are identified with mitigation strategies
|
||||
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable and achievable
|
||||
|
||||
## Assessment Completion
|
||||
|
||||
### Report Quality
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All findings are supported by specific examples
|
||||
- [ ] Recommendations are actionable and specific
|
||||
- [ ] Severity levels are appropriately assigned
|
||||
- [ ] Positive findings are highlighted
|
||||
- [ ] Next steps are clearly defined
|
||||
|
||||
### Process Validation
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All expected documents were reviewed
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-references were systematically checked
|
||||
- [ ] Project level considerations were applied correctly
|
||||
- [ ] Workflow status was checked and considered
|
||||
- [ ] Output folder was thoroughly searched for artifacts
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Issue Log
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Issues Found
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
|
||||
### High Priority Issues Found
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium Priority Issues Found
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
- [ ] ***
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
_Use this checklist to ensure comprehensive validation of implementation readiness_
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user